Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Pregnant Employee in the Hazardous Workplace
A company has a lab where certain chemicals, potentially dangerous to a fetus, are used for research purposes, and a manufacturing facility where workers may be exposed to lead. For the first time, a worker located in one these areas reports to Human Resources that she is pregnant, and that she wants to continue working in her job until she is ready to give birth to her baby. What may the company do, and what should it do?
Case Law
First, it is well settled that the company may not transfer the employee against her wishes to another job or force her to take a leave of absence. This rule was stated clearly by the Supreme Court in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 206 (1991). Johnson Controls had implemented a policy, after eight employees became pregnant, barring female workers of child-bearing age from working in a job that involved exposure to lead. The Court found that decisions about 'the welfare of future children must be left to the parents who conceive, bear, support and raise them rather than to the employers who hire those parents.' The company argued that the Court should 'allow fetal-protection policies that mandate particular standards for pregnant or fertile women.' The Court held that '[w]e decline to do so' and that 'women as capable of doing their jobs as their male counterparts may not be forced to choose between having a child and having a job.' Finally, the Court stated that under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the 'decision to become pregnant or to work while being either pregnant or capable of becoming pregnant was reserved for each individual women to make for herself.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.